Lately, I’ve noticed the use of the word “gnosis” to be different for different people. This seems only natural as its unfortunate how often people have completely different definitions for the same word. Largely, I myself had conceived of “gnosis” to refer to direct or first-hand knowledge about God; in other words, “gnosis” is the “information” about God that’s apprehended in, say, a vision of God or an angel or some sort of spiritual being. That is “gnosis” as opposed to “epistemis,” which is instead a hypothetical knowledge that potentially derives from a specific line of reasoning but is not necessarily something that one has encountered for one’s self.

So, this is the manner in which I use the word “gnosis.” I don’t use the word to refer to enlightenment or some kind of higher level of knowledge as other Gnostics do; instead, “gnosis” is used kind of like “grace.” One might be in a state of grace, one might be in a state of gnosis, but gnosis is not equivalent to something like Nirvana or theosis; on this point I agree, but I would also disagree with the Gnostics in the Apostolic Johannite Church who insist that the goal of Gnosticism and Christianity is not Nirvana or enlightenment but gnosis as gnosis seems something like the building blocks that lead to Nirvana.

Enough of this. To the point.

Earlier today, something registered with me. I initially had a suspicion that the dyadic nature of Christ/Sophia suggested in some way the Animus and Anima, and so, too, I think this is even more clearly represented and supported by the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary whereby Mary is understood to represent the functions of Sophia in a parallel way that Jesus represents the functions of the Christ.

The problem, of course, is that in circles mystic, esoteric, New Age, and otherwise, the Christ Consciousness is almost always attributed to being the elusive Higher Self/Buddha Nature. This poses a problem, because if Christ represents the Higher Self, then how can He also represent the Animus?

The answer exists to some extent in the sphere of Gnosticism and those who would separate the Eternal Christ from the man Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth becomes the image of the Animus; hence the concept of the “Sacred Heart of JESUS.” I’ve never come across literature who refer to the Sacred Heart as the “Sacred Heart of Christ.” Not once. The Sacred Heart of Jesus is the phrase always used. Thus, the notion is that the Eternal, Pre-existent Christ is the Self and cannot be given a specific form but the man Jesus DOES have a specific form or image- hence, the Animus, the Ideal Image of the Masculine. This is further supported by the Sacred Heart itself and the countless images of Jesus pointing to His Sacred Heart as if to say, “I AM Love; I AM the Passion; I AM the Animus.”

However, for heterosexual men, the parallel devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is necessary. Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is necessary in order for the man to integrate the Anima into himself, I think. Her perpetual virginity is easily explained in the sense that the Anima can NEVER be truly touched or defiled; projected, yes, but ultimately, the Anima is a part of the person, and thus the Blessed Virgin Mary is a perpetual virgin who is the Queen of Heaven because she is assumed into the Divine Self once the person has fully (or mostly fully) integrated the Anima.

This, too, explains why the notion is that she is conceived without sin, that she is immaculate, even as Jesus was sinless; both the Anima and the Animus are CONCEIVED IN THE PSYCHE WITHOUT STAIN OR FAULT.

I have no idea how I know these things; archetypal relationships just seem to pop out at me, and that reinforces the notion that I must approach Christianity through a Jungian lens for it to make sense.

A while back, a friend said something to me along the lines of how he just can’t take most of Protestantism seriously, and I agree. Protestantism seems so geared toward decidedly making itself Not Catholic that the archetypal relationships are all but lost; it isn’t to say that the Catholic variety of Christianity doesn’t have its own issues, for it does, but for a different set of issues.

More and more, it does seem that the Gnostics are about the only Christians in the history of the religion who actually knew what they were talking about.